, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 7–9 | Cite as

Variation in reproductive traits in European passerines in relation to nesting site: allometric scaling to body weight or adaptive variation?

  • Bernt-Erik Saether
Original Papers


The relationships between different reproductive traits and body weight, in relation to nesting site, were studied in European passerines. Body weight explains a significant proportion of the variance in clutch size, egg weight, clutch mass, and incubation period. Whereas clutch size decreases, the other three traits increase with body weight. Even though both clutch mass and clutch size are related to body size, for a given body weight, concealed nesters lay a larger clutch and a greater clutch mass than open-nesters.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alerstam T, Högstedt G (1981) Evolution of hole-nesting in birds. Ornis Scand 12:188–193Google Scholar
  2. Askenmo C (1977) Effects of addition of nestlings on nestling weight, nestling survival, and female weight loss in the pied fly-catcher Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas). Ornis Scand 8:1–8Google Scholar
  3. Blueweiss L, Fow H, Kudyma V, Nakashima D, Peters RH, Sams S (1978) Relationships between body size and some life-history parameters. Oecologia (Berl.) 37:257–272Google Scholar
  4. Glutz von Blotzheim UN (1962) Die Brutvögel der Schweiz. Aargauer Tagblatt AG, ArauGoogle Scholar
  5. Haartman L von (1956) Territory in the Pied Flycatcher, Muscicapa hypoleuca. Ibis 98:460–475Google Scholar
  6. Haartman L von (1957) Adaptation in hole-nesting birds. Evolution 11:339–347Google Scholar
  7. Haartman L von (1969) The nesting habits of Finnish birds. I. Passeriformes. Commental Biol 32:1–187Google Scholar
  8. Haartman L von (1971) Population dynamics. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian Biology, vol I. Academic Press, New York, pp 391–459Google Scholar
  9. Haftorn S (1971) Norges Fugler. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  10. Harvey PH, Mace GM (1982) Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology. In: Kings College Sociobiology Group (eds) Current problems in sociobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343–361Google Scholar
  11. Kendeigh SC (1942) Analysis of losses in the nesting of birds. J Wildl Mgmt 6:19–26Google Scholar
  12. Klomp H (1970) The determination of clutch-size in birds. A review Ardea 58:1–124Google Scholar
  13. Koenig WD (1982) Ecological and social factors affecting hatchability of eggs. Auk 99:526–536Google Scholar
  14. Lack D (1947–1948) The significance of clutch-size. Ibis 89:302–352, 90:25–45Google Scholar
  15. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Nur N (1984) The consequences of brood size for breeding blue tits I. Adult survival, weight change and the cost of reproduction. J Anim Ecol 53:479–496Google Scholar
  17. Peters RH (1983) Ecological consequences of body-size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithson Contrib Zool 9:1–48Google Scholar
  19. Ricklefs RE (1977) A note on the evolution of clutch-size in altricial birds. In: Stonehouse B, Perrins CM (eds) Evolutionary ecology. Macmillan Press, London, pp 194–214Google Scholar
  20. Ricklefs RE (1980) Geographical variation in clutch-size among passerine birds: Ashmole's hypothesis. Auk 97:38–49Google Scholar
  21. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Royama T (1966) Factors covering feeding rate, food requirement and brood size of nesting Great Tits Parus major. Ibis 108:313–347Google Scholar
  23. Royama T (1969) A model for the global variation of clutch size in birds. Oikos 20:562–567Google Scholar
  24. Slagsvold T (1975) Critical period for regulation of Great Tit (Parus major L) and Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus L) populations. Norw J Zool 23:67–88Google Scholar
  25. Slagsvold T (1982) Clutch-size variation in passerine birds: the nest predation hypothesis. Oecologia (Berl.) 54:159–169Google Scholar
  26. Schönwetter M (1967–1983) Handbuch der Oologie. Lieferung 14–39. Akademie-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Western D, Ssemakula J (1982) Life history patterns in birds and mammals and their evolutionary interpretation. Oecologia (Berl.) 54:281–290Google Scholar
  28. Westerterp K, Gortmaker W, Wijngaarten H (1982) An energetic optimum in brood-raising in the starling Sturnus vulgaris. An experimental study. Ardea 70:153–162Google Scholar
  29. Winkel W, Winkel D (1976) Über die brutzeitliche Gewichtsentwicklung beim Trauerschnäpper (Ficedula hypoleuca). Ein Beitrag zur Frage “Belastung während der Fortpflanzungsperiode” J Orn 117:419–437Google Scholar
  30. Witherby HF, Jourdain FCR, Ticehurst NF, Tucker BW (1944) The handbook of British birds. H.F. & G. Witherby Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernt-Erik Saether
    • 1
  1. 1.DVF ViltforskningenTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations